Whistleblowing Ethics and Policies

Whistle rangeing Ethics and PoliciesWhistleblowing occurs when an employee discloses information. til now, jibe to Armstrong, 90 of tin blabblowers suffer from firing or demotions, 27 eccentricd legal actions, 26 were referred to medical treatment, 17 went homeless, and 8% bankrupted. Whistleblowers may suffer round kind of harassment, lower mathematical operation evaluations, punitive transfer or violence by their fellow colleagues and/or superiors if they remain working in the organisation (Dellaportas al., 2005). Therefore, whistle blower guard is measurable to encourage employees in uncovering any fraud, and ensure that channels ar open for whistleblowing. Supporting effective protection for whistleblowers can form advantages such(prenominal) as promoting an open organisational conclusion where employees put up confidence in the report procedures, countering and disclosing bribery in commercial transactions, safeguarding justice, enhancing accountability, and supporting a clean pipeline environment (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012).One can adopt a normative strategy when facing tough ethical choices as it can second people to evaluate and think c befully so as to prevent them from making irrational endings. Normative clean-livingity provides several philosophical approaches for making sound ethical decisions and it can be categorized into three part (a) consequentialist, (b) deontological and (c) truth theory (Trevino Nelson, 2004).The consequentialist theory focuses attention on the results or consequences of the decision or action (Trevino Nelson, 2004). It includes philosophical approaches alike(p) egoism and utilitarianism. Egoism grows an individuals long-run interests magic spell utilitarianism holds ethical actions as those d one for the greatest penny-pinching or to maximize total utility (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2000). On the contrary, the deontological theory focuses on the righ ts of individuals and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior instead than on its consequences (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2000) and it embraces philosophical approaches like Kantianism and justice. Kantianism revolve around business, not end goals or emotions, and their actions atomic number 18 performed according to well-nigh underlying regulation or maxim that atomic number 18 entirely different from one another(prenominal) (e.g. honesty, fairness and justice), while the philosophical get a line of justice is rooted in ones belief in moral beauteousness and equitable treatment for everyone concerned with a questionable action. Lastly, the virtue ethics approach focuses more on the integrity of the moral actor than on the moral act itself (Trevino Nelson, 2004).The above-mentioned normative ethical theories can be applied to decide if employees should have a concern to blow the whistle on wrong/illegal acts or not.From the egocentrics point of view, it is rare that employees leave behind face the dilemma of deciding whether to blow the whistle. Be it due to idolize of being investigated by the authorities or fear of being describe to the authorities as a scapegoat for sideline the policies, employees give seldom face these problems if they adhere to the egoism approach (Clairmont, 2011). fit in to Clairmont (2011), well- cognise whistleblowers (e.g. Ellsberg, Manning and dense Throat) pull up stakes never even consider whistleblowing if they follow the egoism regularity of making ethical decisions. This is be contract the upcoming hassle/trouble that they will face after they blow the whistle will deter them from doing so. As such, egotist employees will encounter that it is not a avocation but rather a choice to blow the whistle on unethical or illegal acts. They will solo blow the whistle if it is within their self-seeking and if they are not negatively affected in any way. However, some argue that if one is to take the negative consequences of whistleblowing into consideration, some degree of egoist traits appears to be acceptable (Clairmont, 2011).From a utilitarian thought, the act of whistleblowing is seen as the computing results of different foreseen consequences, and the impact of possible consequences on the conflicting loyalties (Padgett, 2009). The availability of alternatives and whether the benefits of whistleblowing bybalance the cost determine the choice of whether or not to blow the whistle. fit to Bentham (1996), acts that create the most amount of happiness for the majority should be solecism-hardened as mor in ally obligatory acts. Moreover, unlike the egoism approach, the utilitarianism approach encourages one to treat others wellbeing as a heavily weighted doer when making an ethical decision. Hence, whistleblowing should be considered as a duty when it is jockeyn that the consequences of non-disclosure will result in extremely negative impacts on the earth. privy Stuart Mills utilitarian perspective can besides be use to discuss whether whistleblowing should be a duty. His utilitarian principle of do no harm supports the idea that whistleblowing is a duty if a non-disclosure act should private road harm since this principle holds that ones actions should prevent harm to others. Harm in this case can take a variety of forms and it is not just circumscribed to instances of physical injuries. The intensity and amount of harm that the problem can add as well as determines whether whistleblowing should be an obligation. Mill to a fault emphasizes that one should be responsible for others if his inaction happen to cause harm to them. If one sees a righteousness to prevent others from being harmed, then blowing the whistle on acts that may cause harm to others will appear to be at least partially justified base on Mills principle of do no harm (Padgett, 2009).From the Kantian perspective, employees should have a duty to blow the whist le on unethical or illegal acts because it is the right topic to do. They are morally responsible to inform the public and/or stakeholders about the misconducts because the theme of moral action is more important than the potential consequences of not whistleblowing. such courage to go against all odds and the possibility of punishment from the employer is needful if those who are privy to immoral business practices are to make a positive contribution to the respect of consumer rights the world over (Masaka, 2007). Kant did not understandably state that whistleblowing should be a duty in all circumstances. However, what is get in from him is that he expects truth telling and the good will of the moral agent. Hence, base on these principles, one can will that an employee should blow the whistle if he/she has information of others or the organizations intentional wrongdoings (Padgett, 2009).Ones response to implementing a justice perspective would be identical to using a deonto logical moral philosophy. From the viewpoint of justice, employees would feel obligated to blow the whistle internally about any unethical or illegal action within the organization as the employers have the rights to know the truth about the misconduct. Hence, it will be unsportsmanlike to the employers if the snarled employees do not disclose the wrongdoings to them. Based on justice approach, whistleblowing externally should also be a duty because it will be unfair to all the stakeholders if the involved employees choose not to blow the whistle. This is because these parties have the rights to know the truth about any misconduct that affects them.As mentioned above, consequentialism focuses on the consequences (outcomes) of the actions while deontology emphasizes on adhering to ethical duties. Virtue ethics differs in that the emphasis is based on being rather than doing.According to virtue theory, whistleblowing is the right thing to do because it requires one to tell the trut h, to speak up/sound out and to emphasize with others, thus promoting positive virtues like honesty, courage and empathy. An employee who upholds any of these virtues will feel obliged to blow the whistle because it can improve ones integrity. However, some argue that whistleblowing disregards virtues in different ways. For instance, whistleblowing can be seen as pose peoples lives at risk, publishing stolen info and degrading loyalty, privacy and integrity of data (Backhaus Dodig Crnkovic, 2011). Hence, if we look from this point of view, whistleblowing should not be a duty. A vulgar conflict with regards to whistleblowing is between the virtue of loyalty and honesty (Bowden, 2005). Many whistleblowers following this ethical approach will often face the dilemma of being truthful or remaining loyal to their organisation. Therefore, employees should weigh their priorities between these twain virtues and choose a side loyalty or honesty.All in all, most of the ethical theories pr ovide substantial grounds for discussing whistleblowing as a moral duty. From the utilitarian perspective, the duty to blow the whistle would follow from the principle of doing no harm and recognition of the extent to which our actions or inactions have pregnant consequences for the lives of others. From the deontological perspective (includes Kantianism and justice), it would consist of a duty to disclose the wrongdoing of another person (or organization) in recognition of the obligation to be truthful (Padgett, 2009). The virtue theory however provides two sides of the story whistleblowing should be a duty based on certain virtues (e.g. honesty) whereas whistleblowing should not be a duty based on other virtues (e.g. loyalty). When comparing honesty and loyalty which are the most crucial virtues with regards to whistleblowing, one can note that honesty will supplant loyalty if there is a conflict between the two, as honesty is considered as the most important part of any keep an eye on code (Fraschini, 2007). Hence, based on this, one can deduce that whistleblowing should be a duty from the virtue perspective. Egoism is the only ethical theory that does not support whistleblowing as a moral duty. If we critically go the traits of this theory, one can observe that ethical egoism provides no moral basis for the resolution of conflicts of interest that form the only vindication for a moral code (Baier, 1990). Moreover, according to Rachels (2008), the ethical egoist may object that he cannot admit a construct of morality whose aim is provided to forestall conflicts of interest. As such, the egoism theory cannot be a good measure to determine whether whistleblowing should be a duty. Hence, based on all the above considerations, one can conclude that employees should have a duty to blow the whistle on misconduct.Since whistleblowing should be a duty, it is crucial that whistleblowers are under legal protection and have clear focussing on reportage procedure s in Singapore. The provision of whistleblower protection encourages an open organisational culture where employees are not only awake of how to report but also have the confidence in the reporting procedures. The protection of whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting in good faith suspected acts of corruption and other wrongdoing is therefore integral to efforts to combat corruption, promote public sector integrity and accountability, and support a clean business environment. Whistleblowing protection systems are astray implemented in the western countries. For instance, in Italy, proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Bill state that whistleblowers cannot be penalized, fired or submitted to any direct or indirect discrimination, which would have an impact on the working conditions directly or indirectly conjugated to the report. Protection is also provided under the U.S. law, against less severe disciplinary actions, such as admonishments or reprimands (Organization fo r Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012).On the contrary, whistleblowing legislation in Asia is not as sophisticated or as robust as it is in the US (Lord Cole, 2012). The workplace cultures in Asian differ from those in the West. Family businesses promote a distinct sense of patronage within themselves that are fantastically collective. Foreign companies operating in Asia reveal that the staff is not only loyal to the company, but also to their bosses and line managers (Lord Cole, 2012). These cultural norms hinder whistleblowing to prosper. However in recent years, Asian countries take whistleblowing seriously and are aware of Dodd-Frank, for example.Singapore code of CG expanded the role of the Audit Committee (AC) in Guideline 12.4 of the 2012. There are some changes made to the whistle-blowing provisions in the 2012 companies should disclose in its annual report the existence of a whistle-blowing policy, and the procedures for training whistle-blower should be publicly disclosed as appropriate (Ernst Young, 2012). These changes array Singapores corporate governance practice in this area closely with that of the UK and US. According to a Singapore Institute of Directors survey, 70% of the listed companies have a whistleblower policy compared to 20% five years ago. Another 8% give tongue to they did not have a policy but intended to disclose one, while 3% reported that they had no plans to introduce whistleblowing (Deloitte, 2011). Koreas ACRC Act also provides protection against financial or administrative disadvantages, such as the cancellation of a permit or license, or the revocation of a contract (Park , 2008).In conclusion, based on the philosophical approaches, employees should have a duty to blow the whistle. Therefore, whistleblowers need to under legal protection and have clear guidance on reporting procedures. Protecting whistleblowers from retaliation can (a) promote public sector accountability, (b) combat corruption, and (c) suppor t a clean business environment. Whistleblowing protection policy has been widely implement in the Western countries. Recently, Asian countries also take whistleblowing seriously and reinforce their whistleblower policy.